Re-visiting the screet-car dilemma

[kch86]

Very astute observation. It is an important question to ponder. My view is simple. If someone has knowledge about some “bad” act to be committed, and if one has the power to prevent it, and if one fails to prevent it, that someone is exactly as guilty as the actual perpetrator. I am not sure how the different legal systems handle this problem, but there should be no difference between the one who pulls the trigger, and the one who could have prevented it, but failed to do so. And I am sure you know what the next sentence would be.

By that understanding, if I knew my friend was going out clubbing and was likely to fornicate that night, I would be required to lock him up in the basement so that I wouldn’t be guilty of the sin of fornication.

To a significant degree, people have freedom to act, and that has to be respected. It’s not absolute freedom so there might be cases where I would be required to act, but in many cases of day-to-day immorality, I have no say.

 

[Serious]

Okay, let’s say that moral law is above state law. If we word it that way, then I think you can follow. Catholics are not bound to follow state law if it conflicts with moral law. Therefore, if a law mandating a nation’s citizens to slaughter any blue-eyed child were enacted, the Catholic would be obliged not to follow that law. I hope that you too would put moral law as you understand it above state law in that situation.

Yes, we can agree with that in the specific example you quoted. But lying under oath is still a perjury. I have no problem with this lie at all. Again, we have similar or even identical views, and use different wordings.

In practice, many faithful Catholics might lie in the situation you describe and then go to the confessional.

Quite all right. The idea of making a confession is another great “get-out-of-jail-free” card. A most ingenious idea. Do whatever you want to do, then repent honestly, and then you are home scot-free. Too bad that I don’t have one.

Yes, and Catholics are not only permitted but required to abide by moral law when it contradicts state law.

As he or she understands them. Which is fine. I am doing the same thing, follow the law when I agree with it, and break it, when I think that that particular law is improper. Example: In many cities in the US there are local ordinances which forbid feeding other people’s parking meter. If someone does it, and is caught, a nice fine will follow. I happen to think that this local law is ridiculous, so I break it every time I have a chance.

 

[Serious]

By that understanding, if I knew my friend was going out clubbing and was likely to fornicate that night, I would be required to lock him up in the basement so that I wouldn’t be guilty of the sin of fornication.

I wish you would have chosen an example which I can ponder. Since what you call a “fornication” is not a problem in my eyes, I cannot contemplate it.

To a significant degree, people have freedom to act, and that has to be respected.

Sure, as long as it does not violate the inverse Golden Rule.

It’s not absolute freedom so there might be cases where I would be required to act, but in many cases of day-to-day immorality, I have no say.

I know. As a matter of fact, there are many cases of behavior, which you consider immoral or improper, and I do not. That is why it is hard to come to a general agreement.

 

[Richard320]

Street cars, like trains, just follow the track. The driver can stop or go, adjust the speed or direction, but not steer. So there’s nothing to be done.

 

[Serious]

Street cars, like trains, just follow the track. The driver can stop or go, adjust the speed or direction, but not steer. So there’s nothing to be done.

The driver can choose which track to follow, when there is a Y-fork on the rail. And that is the central point of the problem. I can still remember when there was an employee, who had to make the adjustment manually, but those times are long gone now.

 

[kch86]

Quite all right. The idea of making a confession is another great “get-out-of-jail-free” card. A most ingenious idea. Do whatever you want to do, then repent honestly, and then you are home scot-free. Too bad that I don’t have one.

And it’s a good thing that we do. Living up to these lofty Catholic ideals is pretty damn hard and we’d all be doomed otherwise. “Doing whatever you want to do” with the intent of future repentance is spiritually very dangerous from the Catholic perspective because it cultivates pride, which makes sincere repentance exceptionally difficult. It’s called presumption.

But it’s true. No matter how badly one might mess up, the door to the repentant is always open, and this get-out-of-jail-free card is available to all of humanity.

Anyway, I imagine that from your perspective, you don’t need a confessional. Whether or not you live up to your ideals is your own business and the ultimate consequences of your actions will always be the same. (Please don’t take offence. I’m sure you have your own reasons for striving to live morally as you understand it.)

As he or she understands them. Which is fine. I am doing the same thing, follow the law when I agree with it, and break it, when I think that that particular law is improper. Example: In many cities in the US there are local ordinances which forbid feeding other people’s parking meter. If someone does it, and is caught, a nice fine will follow. I happen to think that this local law is ridiculous, so I break it every time I have a chance.

It’s not as subjective as that. We are to be obedient to civil authority insofar as its demands on us are not immoral.

I wish you would have chosen an example which I can ponder. Since what you call a “fornication” is not a problem in my eyes, I cannot contemplate it.

Well, I had to point out how this idea doesn’t apply to me as a Catholic, because the situations in which you and I would be obligated to act would be broadly similar and then we’d just be agreeing too much.

 

[VonDerTann]

Serious has stated this:

This is the dilemma. None of the above is negotiable. You cannot “wiggle out” from the circumstances. If you do not wish to reply, that is your business. But do not try to derail the problem by whining about the dilemma, that it is not likely, or whatever. A thought experiment does not have to be likely. Of course, none of this is your fault, but sometimes we find ourselves between a rock and hard place, even though we did nothing improper. …

–And I say balderdash.

Why? Because when Serious won’t state their religion, I can’t help but think this is just a way of mocking Catholics, under the guise of calling this some “thought experiment.”

OK, Serious, here’s my answer: Your post is absurd because no one will ever face these circumstances, and if we did by some 0.000000001% chance, we could never possess the state of knowledge your tram driver possesses about the people standing on the tracks. The premise is insipid; the purpose is insipid, and I find it insulting; and anyone who answers seriously IMHO is playing into the hands of someone who is probably mocking and playing US for fools.

Don’t bother responding; I’ll never see it, because the entire thread is a waste of time God gave us. Buh-BYE.

 

[kch86]

Why? Because when Serious won’t state their religion, I can’t help but think this is just a way of mocking Catholics, under the guise of calling this some “thought experiment.”

Serious is secular. Probably atheist or agnostic. Regardless of his motivations, we can use his challenging thought experiments to learn about our own faith.

The premise is insipid; the purpose is insipid, and I find it insulting; and anyone who answers seriously IMHO is playing into the hands of someone who is probably mocking and playing US for fools.

Very un-Catholic of you. If Serious wishes to mock us, he is free to do so. But he raises legitimate questions that deserve legitimate answers. If anything, his thread has proved that Catholics’ knowledge of their own Church’s teaching is woefully inadequate. Which is why his thread does a service to us in that it allows us to explore what Catholic morality truly is, what secular morality is like, and how the two differ.

Don’t bother responding; I’ll never see it, because the entire thread is a waste of time God gave us. Buh-BYE.

That’s a shame. You should read it and gain a greater understanding of our Catholic faith.

 

[ChesterBeach]

I’m not able to follow this as much as I like but you were getting into self defense a bit ago and how far it extends.

Just War Theory addresses this to a degree.

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

• there must be serious prospects of success;

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

 

[ChesterBeach]

More Directly -

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

 

[EmeraldWings]

If i were faced with such a terrible situation, which i pray to God i never would be, i think that, considering(in your scenario) that there are only two options which are unavoidable, it would be logical to avoid the 5 and go for the one, because i think that it is important to save as many people as possible…it’s certainly not an easy choice to make, and to be under such pressure i would not judge someone if they made the wrong choice, because i’m sure they’d be beating themselves up about it for the rest of their life, and dieing inside also…
another question comes to mind, if you were the one person on the track, would you rather die to save the other 5?
as for whether i would choose the pope and 4 cardinals over a criminal…well, when i think about it, i might choose to save the one who is not as likely to make it to heaven, and go for the ones most likely to go to heaven…and personally i’d be praying the whole time for a miracle…

it’s not such a hard thing to think about when you’re not actually faced with it, so if i were actually faced with it i can’t say i know what i would do…but what’s important to remember is this - in such a circumstance, you would not be guilty of sin, it is a sin to kill when we have the intention to kill, but not when there is no choice or if it is accidental,

i know you’re not Catholic, but you seem to want to know about our faith, and many other things it seems, and so i just wanted to make a book recommendation for really knowing what we believe(for example, confession is not a “get out of jail free” card, if you commit a sin with the intention of just confessing it later…you won’t be forgiven, that is what we call an invalid confession, you have to truly repent of your sins, and truly regret them, because otherwise you cannot be freed from something you are still holding onto)
though the book doesn’t give all the teachings of the church, but it is still a great explanation of what we believe, i think you might find it helpful(free to read online) - archive.org/stream/creedexplainedor00devirich#page/n7/mode/2up
hope that helps, i’ll keep you in my prayers, take care.

 

[yellow8yellowM]

I think the underlying question here is

“Can sin be committed by a lack of action?”

[Almost] every Mass we pray, “I confess to Almighty God, that I have greatly sinned…in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do…”

This is a prayer and not doctrine, but I believe it makes the point. We can sin by our inactions. We are not free from sin by failing to act and letting the train run over the five people.

 

[Serious]

Whether or not you live up to your ideals is your own business and the ultimate consequences of your actions will always be the same. (Please don’t take offence. I’m sure you have your own reasons for striving to live morally as you understand it.)

It would be impossible for you to offend me.

It’s not as subjective as that. We are to be obedient to civil authority insofar as its demands on us are not immoral.

Right. But you would use your own judgment to decide if something is immoral or not.

Well, I had to point out how this idea doesn’t apply to me as a Catholic, because the situations in which you and I would be obligated to act would be broadly similar and then we’d just be agreeing too much.

Indeed… and we cannot “risk” that, can we? But seriously, if you would have positive knowledge (not just a likely assumption) that your buddy intends to rape his date tonight and you would just stand to the side, you would be just as guilty in the act as he.

 

[Serious]

I’m not able to follow this as much as I like but you were getting into self defense a bit ago and how far it extends.

Just War Theory addresses this to a degree.

Yes, it is an important consideration. On paper it is easy. In reality it is not. Have you seen the movie “Breaker Morant”? Who is the “soldier” and who is the “non-combatant”? Almost impossible to decide.

 

[Serious]

If i were faced with such a terrible situation, which i pray to God i never would be, i think that, considering(in your scenario) that there are only two options which are unavoidable, it would be logical to avoid the 5 and go for the one, because i think that it is important to save as many people as possible…it’s certainly not an easy choice to make, and to be under such pressure i would not judge someone if they made the wrong choice, because i’m sure they’d be beating themselves up about it for the rest of their life, and dieing inside also…
another question comes to mind, if you were the one person on the track, would you rather die to save the other 5?
as for whether i would choose the pope and 4 cardinals over a criminal…well, when i think about it, i might choose to save the one who is not as likely to make it to heaven, and go for the ones most likely to go to heaven…and personally i’d be praying the whole time for a miracle…

it’s not such a hard thing to think about when you’re not actually faced with it, so if i were actually faced with it i can’t say i know what i would do…but what’s important to remember is this - in such a circumstance, you would not be guilty of sin, it is a sin to kill when we have the intention to kill, but not when there is no choice or if it is accidental,

i know you’re not Catholic, but you seem to want to know about our faith, and many other things it seems, and so i just wanted to make a book recommendation for really knowing what we believe(for example, confession is not a “get out of jail free” card, if you commit a sin with the intention of just confessing it later…you won’t be forgiven, that is what we call an invalid confession, you have to truly repent of your sins, and truly regret them, because otherwise you cannot be freed from something you are still holding onto)
though the book doesn’t give all the teachings of the church, but it is still a great explanation of what we believe, i think you might find it helpful(free to read online) - archive.org/stream/creedexplainedor00devirich#page/n7/mode/2up
hope that helps, i’ll keep you in my prayers, take care.

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

[Serious]

I think the underlying question here is

“Can sin be committed by a lack of action?”

[Almost] every Mass we pray, “I confess to Almighty God, that I have greatly sinned…in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do…”

This is a prayer and not doctrine, but I believe it makes the point. We can sin by our inactions. We are not free from sin by failing to act and letting the train run over the five people.

Also an excellent observation. Thank you!

 

[vera_dicere]

Two nonsense posts and one attempt to evade the dilemma. Is that the best you guys can do? The circumstances are NOT subject to change. You do NOT have an option to deviate. Of course this is a hypothetical scenario (a thought experiment), but in real life you cannot avoid making a decision, and you cannot change the setup to suit your preferences. Sheesh.

As people have said, change teh way you state your question.

Say there’s a bus of babies heading to another hospital while the one they were in is being repaired. The driver of the baby bus is getting a coffee and won’t make it back to the baby bus in time. The babies have no knowledge of the tram so cannot rush to the controls and drive teh bus to safety.

The other single person is an old man who’s pants are stuck in the tracks. He’s deaf.

Its late night or early morning, there aren’t a lot of people around to see this to warn either the baby bus driver or the deaf man.

 

[kch86]

Indeed… and we cannot “risk” that, can we? But seriously, if you would have positive knowledge (not just a likely assumption) that your buddy intends to rape his date tonight and you would just stand to the side, you would be just as guilty in the act as he.

True. I would be obligated to do what I could to stop him, and indeed I would be guilty should I do nothing. It would be a sin of omission, which does exist in Catholic teaching. Although my inaction would indeed be heinously wrong, because of the very different natures of the two wrongs, I am not qualified to say whether whether it would be equal to my friend’s act of rape.

I noticed some people responded that it would be better for the tram to run over and kill four cardinals and the Pope as opposed to a criminal, reasoning that it would be better to run over the 5 clergymen because it would mean that they are more likely to go to heaven.

I am firmly of the opinion that this is the wrong conclusion. We as Catholics are not permitted to judge the state of another’s soul. For all we know, the Pope could be a fornicator, one of the cardinals a rapist, another a paedophile, another a murderer and another a fraudster, while the criminal could be a repentant man seeking to amend his life.

I know some of my fellow Catholics may be offended that I should use such an example, but there really is no way of us knowing, and we cannot judge the value of another’s life based on our own perceptions of their rectitude or otherwise.

 

[Serious]

True. I would be obligated to do what I could to stop him, and indeed I would be guilty should I do nothing. It would be a sin of omission, which does exist in Catholic teaching. Although my inaction would indeed be heinously wrong, because of the very different natures of the two wrongs, I am not qualified to say whether whether it would be equal to my friend’s act of rape.

Obviously you would not be the one who does the physical assault. I am only saying the the responsibility for the act would be shared equally.

I noticed some people responded that it would be better for the tram to run over and kill four cardinals and the Pope as opposed to a criminal, reasoning that it would be better to run over the 5 clergymen because it would mean that they are more likely to go to heaven.

I am firmly of the opinion that this is the wrong conclusion. We as Catholics are not permitted to judge the state of another’s soul. For all we know, the Pope could be a fornicator, one of the cardinals a rapist, another a paedophile, another a murderer and another a fraudster, while the criminal could be a repentant man seeking to amend his life.

I saw this, too. My reasoning is simple: the pope and the cardinals are respectable people (even if I disagree with their views) and the are filled with good will (even if the road to hell is paved with intentions - as the old proverb says). Why assume that they are secretly “bad boys”, when there is no reason to assume it? And why assume that the criminal has repented? I am a firm believer of the duck-principle - mostly things are what they seem to be. Life would be impossible if we did not trust our judgment, if we always tried to second-guess our gut-feelings.

 

[kch86]

I saw this, too. My reasoning is simple: the pope and the cardinals are respectable people (even if I disagree with their views) and the are filled with good will (even if the road to hell is paved with intentions - as the old proverb says). Why assume that they are secretly “bad boys”, when there is no reason to assume it? And why assume that the criminal has repented? I am a firm believer of the duck-principle - mostly things are what they seem to be. Life would be impossible if we did not trust our judgment, if we always tried to second-guess our gut-feelings.

My point was that Catholics shouldn’t be assuming anything because they are specifically commanded not to judge in the sense that God would judge. They are allowed to “trust their judgement” and judge in the casual sense, but should not make decisions based on the judgement of the soul of another, because we have no way of knowing what state another’s soul is in, and that judgement belongs solely to God.

If the Catholic had to choose to save just one person out of two, then I guess he could use whatever subjective criteria he wished, i.e. to save a family member, a man whom he believes is needed by his family, a man of good reputation, etc. Whomever he chose, his action would be equivalent. But if the choice is between one person and five people, then I believe that it would be entirely wrong to save the one and let the other five perish based on one’s own judgement of who is a good person and should live because they seem good or should die because they would be likely to go to heaven. In this situation, the laws of mathematics should apply.